ALBANY, N.Y. – Shocking developments have emerged from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in the civil rights case Raven v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), et al., Federal Case No. 1:25-cv-01624. The case, filed by pro se plaintiff Julian Raven, has exposed a deeply troubling pattern of irregular judicial conduct, raising major questions about impartiality, procedural integrity, and conflicts of interest at the highest levels of New York’s federal judiciary.
The controversy centers around two key judicial figures: Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart and District Judge Anne M. Nardacci. Soon after the complaint was filed, Magistrate Judge Stewart—an adjunct professor of civil rights at Albany Law School—granted a minute order in favor of the New York State Attorney General, despite only two of the seven named defendants having legal representation on the docket at that time. The Plaintiff, Julian Raven, had not even been served nor afforded the opportunity to respond. The ex parte order, benefiting the state, flies in the face of core constitutional principles, particularly in a civil rights lawsuit aimed at exposing governmental abuse.
The irregularities did not stop there. District Judge Nardacci issued a hastily written minute order that grossly mischaracterized the Plaintiff’s complaint, falsely asserting that he was seeking monetary damages—a claim not made anywhere in the filing. This glaring error suggests the use of boilerplate language aimed at fast-tracking dismissal without proper review of the case’s constitutional claims.
These compounding actions prompted Raven to escalate the matter to Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes, notifying her chambers directly and filing a formal letter on the docket invoking her supervisory authority. Notably, the docket has since gone silent, suggesting a freeze on judicial activity following Raven’s alert.
Perhaps most disturbing is what emerged during Raven’s follow-up investigation: just eight weeks before Judge Nardacci was assigned to the case, her husband, Tom Nardacci, appeared publicly alongside one of the named defendants—DEC Commissioner Amanda Lefton—on a televised panel. Despite this obvious conflict of interest and the appearance of compromised impartiality, Judge Nardacci made no disclosure and proceeded to issue rulings that clearly advantaged the DEC.
The Plaintiff has since submitted a formal letter to Albany Law School President Cinnamon P. Carlarne, challenging how an educator of civil rights law like Judge Stewart could so quickly fold under institutional pressure and act in ways that undermine the very principles he is entrusted to teach.
The convergence of apparent bias, procedural anomalies, and undisclosed personal affiliations within this case is prompting growing concern about the erosion of judicial integrity in civil rights matters involving powerful state agencies.
Supporting documentation can be found at www.714baldwinstreet.com
